¹ú²úAV

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request. 

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu’s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1.  The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization’s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...